White House: Contraception insurance mandate is not up for debate

posted at 6:35 pm on February 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

White House press secretary Jay Carney made no bones about it in today’s press conference: The administration’s decision to require religiously-affiliated employers to provide their employees with insurance coverage that covers contraception — even if the employers oppose contraceptives on religious grounds — is final.

The White House said Thursday it has no plans to reverse course on its decision to require that all employers cover contraception in their insurance plans, despite a wave of criticism from Republicans and Catholic leaders.

After a bruising week for health officials on the issue, the White House arranged a conference call with reporters to address what it called “confusion” over the policy. It also put up a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, director of the House Domestic Policy Council, pointing out that “no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception” and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

You can bet this wouldn’t be so cut-and-dried if the political calculus didn’t work out so perfectly in Barack Obama’s favor. The president thinks he can afford to thumb his nose not only at Catholic voters but at any voters concerned by the president’s perpetual power grabs because women and young voters will make up for their loss.

But anybody who opposes Obamacare ought to oppose this requirement on all of the same grounds. We don’t even have to talk about the religious liberty angle of this. It will, for example, bump insurance prices even higher. Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it? As Ed has pointed out, contraception is elective. That fact alone ought to rule it out as a required coverage area.

But add to that the religious liberty element and it becomes increasingly clear that this is not about contraception. The president cares far less about whether women have access to the pill than he does about whether (a) they vote for him and (b) he’s able to define what constitutes a religious institution. Unfortunately for the president, “women and young voters” are far less attached to this provision — especially given that contraception is already cheaply available — than Catholics and others are to their liberty. This issue isn’t going away for the president; it too clearly reveals his indifference to those he thinks he doesn’t need.

This is an attempt to get the moderate women voter back into the fold.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

It’s funny, 99% of all people in my area (Chicago burbs) that have Obama bumper stickers are middle-aged (and older) white women driving by themselves. I wouldn’t normally care about phenomenons like this but it’s hard not to notice at this point. Anyway, carry on…

We don’t even have to talk about the religious liberty angle of this. It will, for example, bump insurance prices even higher. Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it?

Tina, this is the entire point of insurance. You pool things together to lower risk. My work insurance covers all sorts of medications my coworkers take that I don’t. And I have to be on the same plan with people that have 10 pieces of bacon everyday. It’s how the insurers do it.

No, they don’t. On my old insurance plan, I had a four day window to pick up my prescription. And I was not allowed any other option. If republicans really were smart about this, they’d change some of the nonsense rules used to dole out medicine.

We all know Mitt agrees with the White House on this, just look at his record as Massachusetts Governor. The guy was a liberal on most issues, but a super-liberal on specific social issues like abortions and gun-rights.

It could be legally problematic to provide a religious exemption for contraception but not provide one for believers who oppose other drugs, such as antidepressants.

OptionsTrader on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM

You are actually comparing apples to oranges.. Anti-Depressants are a necessary medical treatment. Not providing contraception has never harmed anyone medically. You can’t get a cheap alternative over the counter for depression whereas condoms are readily available.

The Catholic Church has only itself to blame for this. They have touting the social justice mantra for years;allowed so called Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry??, to “teach “other Catholics what to believe[you know, that conscience thing]. The bishops put up with it. Notre Dame has mister abortion himself speak and get a reward, etc. You shake hands with the devil or sleep with a snake, what do you think is going to happen??? And this has less to do with abortion or contraception than it does with dismantling the Constitution.

If Mitt wraps-up the nomination before the Supreme Court rules on the individual healthcare mandate, it won’t be overturned. The Court knows this is one the most-divisive, hotly-debated national issues in quite a long time, and once the Justices see that both parties have no problem with an individual mandate, they’ll probably rule in favor of it. Remember, a Mitt nomination tells the Supreme Court that the GOP is okay with a mandate! Don’t forget that!

I wasn’t talking politically, I specifically meant policy-wise. That’s why I brought up Mitt’s record as Governor, which was extremely liberal on social issues, and now he tries to walk back his stances on those same issues. Of course Mitt would align himself as a conservative, politically, because he’s one of the biggest panderers in modern history.

It could be legally problematic to provide a religious exemption for contraception but not provide one for believers who oppose other drugs, such as antidepressants.

There is no good reason for the administration to require companies provide insurance that covers birth control with no copay and no out of pocket expenses. It is being treated differently than any other prescription medicine, including antidepressants. Furthermore, female birth control is being treated differently than male birth control. Men still have to pay.

Catholics that follow the Church’s teachings on birth control are getting rarer and rarer. He probably figured that any Catholic conservative enough to follow through on not using birth control wouldn’t vote for him anyway (because of his abortion stance).

I think think that the Bishops should be able to determine how national health care policy is run.

Also the Imams.

urban elitist on February 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Religious freedom is written into the bill of rights whereas national health care policy is not.

So, yeah, I’m going to have to side with a bishop, or imam or Buddhist monk or any other religious leader or organization that does not want to be forced by the government to provide a service that is abhorrent to their religious tenants.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

As an atheist, but 1000% civil libertarian, I’ll see you in court (petition the Government for a redress of grievances) and on the picket lines/sit-ins (peaceable assembly).

And, if the “Most Powerful Man in America,” Tony Kennedy, rules against us for some reason although I doubt that he will, I hope that the Catholic Church closes all of its hospitals – that’s 15% of the hospital beds in America. Oh, and to prevent a 5th Amendment taking or eminent domain condemnation, I hope they burn all of them to the ground before you tyrants get your disgusting hands on them.

So, stop screwing with us. Careful. That tree is getting thirsty — and I am not saying this as Alex Jones-tinfoil-hat-wearing, Oathkeeper, but a level-headed, law-abiding, American-by-choicer.

Just call me: “You Can Kiss My Bloody Bum Because I Am Fed Up And Not Taking It Anymore.”

The Catholic Church has only itself to blame for this. They have touting the social justice mantra for years;allowed so called Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry??, to “teach “other Catholics what to believe[you know, that conscience thing]. The bishops put up with it. Notre Dame has mister abortion himself speak and get a reward, etc. You shake hands with the devil or sleep with a snake, what do you think is going to happen??? And this has less to do with abortion or contraception than it does with dismantling the Constitution.

retiredeagle on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Agreed. Except with that last statement. Remember Maryland. Catholics were persecuted too.

The Catholic Church has only itself to blame for this. They have touting the social justice mantra for years;allowed so called Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry??, to “teach “other Catholics what to believe[you know, that conscience thing]. The bishops put up with it. Notre Dame has mister abortion himself speak and get a reward, etc. You shake hands with the devil or sleep with a snake, what do you think is going to happen??? And this has less to do with abortion or contraception than it does with dismantling the Constitution.

retiredeagle on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I’m not too informed about other states, but in CA these churches have been proudly offering their premises to lodge illegals , specially fugitive illegals .
These churches have pro-actively defied law to shield whole families of criminal illegals , from American law enforcement . They could have chosen to not get in to politics , but they did . Now they are in and they are indignant ??

The president thinks he can afford to thumb his nose not only at Catholic voters but at any voters concerned by the president’s perpetual power grabs because women and young voters will make up for their loss.

It will, for example, bump insurance prices even higher.

The president cares far less about whether women have access to the pill than he does about whether (a) they vote for him and (b) he’s able to define what constitutes a religious institution. Unfortunately for the president, “women and young voters” are far less attached to this provision — especially given that contraception is already cheaply available — than Catholics and others are to their liberty.

Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it?

For the same reason people who don’t have cancer pay a little bit more so they have cancer coverage. It’s a pool where people use the resource according to need. And if the contraception is cheaply available, how does it increase insurance prices?

I don’t expect people writing for Hot Air to be the next Tony Blankley, but you’re really just awful.

The president thinks he can afford to thumb his nose not only at Catholic voters

The vast majority of Catholic voters don’t follow the Church’s teaching on contraception, so they probably won’t be offended in the least.

There is a lot of similar research out there, but here’s a quote from the Guttmacher Institute’s April 2011 report “Religion and Contraceptive Use.”:

Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family
planning; even among Catholic women who attend
church once a month or more, only 2% rely on this
method (not shown). Sixty-eight percent of Catholic
women use highly effective methods: sterilization
(32%, including 24% using female sterilization,) the
pill or another hormonal method (31%) and the IUD
(5%).

I mean, hey, if the 53% (going on 40%) are going to foot the bill for the preventative care of the 47%, who are too incapable of preventing their own love handles, beer bellies, cankles, triple-chins, and fat arses….?

Money is falling from Ben’s helicopter like manna from heaven after all……

And, if the “Most Powerful Man in America,” Tony Kennedy, rules against us for some reason although I doubt that he will, I hope that the Catholic Church closes all of its hospitals – that’s 15% of the hospital beds in America.

Don’t you think that’s the Administration’s end game: To eliminate all private health care so the government can be the sole, mandatory source?

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

As I have said before, the Catholic Church doesn’t mind if you work for them and use birth control. They’d prefer if you didn’t but they’re not going to check your medicine cabinet.

They just don’t want to have to pay for your birth control. That’s what Obama et al obfuscates in the discussion. You can work for a religious organization AND pay for your birth control out of your own pocket. No one is stopping you.

Barry and company are just unleashing another hatred war on religious organizations, specifically Catholics. Most Catholic Democrats will be too busy clinging to their union cards to care.